03-27-2006 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7. Section 1008.10, subd. 6 (h). The proposed change looks fine. 8. Section 1008.10, subd. 6 (i). This provision should be deleted, however, the new proposed language should not be added as the nonconforming provision discussed above will cover these issues. Sign Ordinance Review – First Amendment The City also requested that we review its entire Sign Ordinance with respect to any First Amendment concerns in light of the recent federal court cases that were decided in Minnesota. Advantage Media, L.L.C. v. City of Eden Prairie, 2005 WL 3417276 (D. Minn. 2005); Advantage Media, L.L.C. v. City of Hopkins, 2006 WL (D. Minn. 2006). The cases involved billboard companies that looked for cities with sign ordinances that were vulnerable to legal challenges. Based on these cases, in order for a sign ordinance to be safe from legal challenges, it must not contain provisions that give unbridled discretion to city officials and should not be content-based. If the courts find that any of these characteristics exist, they may find the ordinance unconstitutional (in violation of the First Amendment) and strike the ordinance or the particular provision down, which could allow for the type or design of sign that the city seeks to ban in a particular area to be constructed. Based on these cases, the following sections of the Sign Ordinance should be amended: 1. Section 1008.01 (h) and (i). These provisions should be changed so that they do not reference “commercial” and “noncommercial.” 2. Section 1008.02. Definition of “Banner.” The sentence that addresses flags should be not be content-based (it currently exempts national, state or municipal flags from the definition of “Banner”). The exemption should only pertain to physical characteristics of a flag and not its content (such as “flags no larger than 1’ x 2’ shall not be considered a banner”). 3. Section 1008.02. Definition of “Incidental Sign.” The sentence “[n]o sign with a commercial message legible off the premises shall be considered incidental” should be changed so that it is not based on its content. It could be changed to read “[n]o sign with a message that is legible off of the premises shall be considered incidental.” 4. Section 1008.02. Definition of “Temporary Sign.” The words “commercial” or “non-commercial” should be removed because they are content-based. 5. Section 1008.03 (f). This provision should be removed (“National, state, regional, local, non-commercial, institutional, or cultural flags”) because it is content-based. Flags may be regulated based on their physical characteristics but not their content or by who is displaying them. 6. Section 1008.05, subd. 2. “The Council, if so required in writing, may waive the fee required by this Section where the signs are to be erected by civic or religious organizations.” This provision should be removed because it is based on content (only organizations that are “civic” or “religious” are entitled to a fee waiver) and because it gives unbridled discretion to the City Council. This provision could be replaced with a waiver provision that is not based on the type of organization, such as all non-profit organizations. The discretionary provision should still be removed, however.